On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Elvedin Trnjanin wrote: >> They also offer the "Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB >> cache)" for $100 more than the T5800, but what is the difference >> between the T5800 and the T7250? Well, that information is not easy to >> find for some reason, but it seems that the T7250 supports Intel's >> Virtualization Technology while the T5800 does not. >> >> I want to run Virtual Box with Win XP Pro in it. So how much will the >> Virtualization Technology help me? I'm guessing that it will help >> enough to be worth $100. Any opinions? > > > The "Virtualization Technology" will not help you at all. VirtualBox by > default disables them as they are not as efficient as whatever they're > using - check the FAQ for more information. Do you mean the VirtualBox FAQ? It is here... http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/User_FAQ ...but it does not mention "Virtualization Technology" or "VT". > The only way that it would be $100 dollars better is if the other > processor isn't a Core 2 architecture or it is, but isn't nearly the > same clock speed. What other processor? Are you suggesting that it is possible for one computer to run two CPUs with different clock speeds? Here is what someone on another list had to say: "Intel VT will help quite a bit - it's worth the extra $100. VT (and AMD's AMD-V/SVM) are essentially hardware-assisted traps for non- virtualization safe instructions. Virtualbox/VMware/whatever should be able to treat the virtualized CPU as just a piece of actual hardware, leaving the emulation of non-virt-safe instructions to the *actual* hardware. "If you ever go the Xen route, and want to run a Windows VM, you'll need VT or AMD-V. It's well worth the extra dough even if you don't ever touch Xen or other low-level VM monitors." Obviously I will be needing more opinions. Mike